Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 15-01-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in CC/130/2014, whereof the complaint has been allowed.

The factual matrix of the complaint case revolves around the fact that the Complainant obtained one insurance policy from the OP Insurance Company on 16-03-2009 on payment of premium for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-.  Subsequently, the OP Insurance Company sent a premium notice and accordingly, the Complainant renewed the same by paying a sum of Rs. 90,000/-.  Thereafter, on 15-03-2011, the Complainant paid another sum of Rs. 90,000/- as third and final premium.  As per the terms and conditions under the heading ‘fund valuation’, it was obligatory on the part of the OPs to provide daily detail or update of stock exchange to the Complainant which they did not do.  It is also alleged that as per terms and conditions, OPs were supposed to pay to the Complainant highest NAV, but allegedly, the OPs did not provide any proper statement of NAV to him.  The Complainant invested a total sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- with the OPs.  However, the OPs returned only a sum of Rs. 1,51,819/- as surrender value.  According to the Complainant, he was supposed to get a further sum of Rs. 2,28,181/- from the OPs.  In this regard, the Complainant made several correspondences with the OPs, but in vain.  So, the complaint was filed.

Counter case of the OP Nos. 1 to 4 is that, the subject policy is a regular premium unit linked insurance plan.  In or about 19-03-2010, the Complainant approached these OPs for reducing the premium amount to Rs. 90,000/- and honouring such wish of the Complainant, he was allowed to pay the desired premium.  After 4 long years, the Complainant alleged that he was dissatisfied with the service of the OPs and demanded for update regarding the subject policy which was provided vide letter dated 09-10-2013.  Thereafter, on 08-10-2013, these OPs received a request from the Complainant expressing his desire to surrender the subject policy.  Accordingly, such request was processed and prevailing fund value of the subject policy on the date of surrender, i.e., Rs. 1,51,819.77 was transferred to the bank account of the Complainant.  Thereafter, these OPs received several complaint letters from the Complainant raising allegation of mis-sale of policy after 4 years from the date of issuance of the policy.  The OPs duly replied to the purported allegations vide letter dated 18-11-2013. 

Decision with reasons

We have heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties and gone through the documents on record.

The Appellants denied any arbitrariness in the matter of settlement of the claim of the Respondent No. 1.  It is claimed by the Appellants that they provided a detail statement vide letter dated 09-10-2013, but no copy thereof has been placed on record.  That apart, it transpires from the policy document that the Appellants were supposed to furnish unit statements to the Respondent No. 1 periodically.  However, not a single copy of any such unit statement is placed on record by the Appellants to show that they discharged their contractual obligations in this regard. 

The Appellants notwithstanding shrugged off any arbitrariness in the matter of calculation of the surrender value; it is indeed surprising that no detail statement of account is furnished from the side of the Appellants. Therefore, the correctness of calculation of surrender value could not be verified independently.  We afraid, merely on the basis of their claim, we cannot accord benefit of doubt to them. 

We, thus, find no merit in this Appeal and accordingly, any sort of interference with the impugned order from this end appears totally uncalled for.

The Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent No. 1.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed. Parties do bear their respective costs.